Thursday, March 8, 2012
Melville and Capitalism: More Than One Perspective?
by Scott McIntyre
Herman Melville will always be known as one of the great American writers of his time. During his lifetime (1819- 1891), he established his values and ideas on the world to be very different than most writers of his time, and it is very visible in his works and writings. Capitalism is a belief in free-trade, government free economic prosperity. This idea was influential in the founding of our nation, and in the mid to late nineteenth century, capitalism was booming with the industrial revolution and the creation of better and more technology.
One thing that makes Herman Melville unique to his time was that he criticized and outlined some flaws in capitalism, especially relevant in “Bartleby, the Scrivener” At a time where capitalism was booming in the United States, Melville continued to question the idea of capitalism, and probed reader’s minds with his writings. In this story, the underlying message has to do with Bartleby’s relationship with the narrator. According to Richard J. Zloga’s “Body Politics in ‘Bartleby’: Leprosy, Healing, and Christ-ness in Melville's "Story of Wall-Street,’” “Another interpretation focuses on class struggle and equates Bartleby with Marx's alienated worker, who grows increasingly discontented with his exploitation in a capitalistic society.”
As I began to read into Bartleby, who he is, and who Melville is, I found that I had differing opinions about this story. On one hand, I saw Bartleby as a hard worker at first, who just quit working after a while, and the narrator, (or provider) just handed him everything. This view is somewhat ironic because in a capitalistic society like America in the nineteenth century, one is supposed to be rewarded with hard work, and in this case, Bartleby was handed everything when he did nothing. I read more and questioned my opinion of the story. If Bartleby was rewarded for doing nothing, and he rejected everything that was offered to him, it makes no sense at all. With both of these arguments presented I have come to believe that it is one of two things. Either Bartleby is mentally unstable, or has some kind of personality disorder, or he is taking a stand against capitalism by proving that he can still do nothing and get rewarded for it. I leave the answer to this question with the readers: Was Bartleby taking a stance against capitalism, or was he just a mentally unstable as a person?
Works Cited:
Wiegman, Robyn. "Melville's Geography of Gender." American Literary History 1.4 (1989): 735-53. Print.
Zlogar, Richard J. "Body Politics in "Bartleby": Leprosy, Healing, and Christ-ness in Melville's "Story of Wall-Street"" Nineteenth-Century Literature 53.4 (1999): 505-29. Print.
Watters, R.E.,. "Melville's "Sociality"" American Literature 17.1 (1945): 33-49. Print.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
To be honest I am not sure if I agree with either of those stances on Bartelby.Although his behavior could be deemed insane, there is something about the way he acts that suggests he knows exactly what he is doing. His demeanor keeps the narrator from firing him, or kicking him out, pulling the audience's attention more on the narrator than Bartelby. In the end I did not fully understand what drove Bartelby to do what he did, but I had a better understanding of how others give and retract sympathies so quickly. On the capitalist stance it is easy to see that money is the main drive behind the narrator's actions. Despite this he is still willing to give up some of his money, and even his office space to a man he does not know or understand.As you pointed out in your blog, this does not exactly scream capitialism and its evils at the audience.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Kayla, that neither argument can really set itself apart from the other in order to be deemed correct. Sure, to us as readers, we want to believe Bartleby is insane because it would add something interesting to the story and give an explanation as to why he acts so strangely. However, I can also agree with the argument that he is simply taking a stand against capitalism by refusing to conform to the morals his fellow co-workers practice. This crates a foil between the boss and Bartleby, which not only exposes them further as characters but also adds an excitement to the plot. As a reader, I kept wondering what the boss would do next in an attempt to get a rise out of the impartial worker. However, I don’t think that the object of money plays too much of a role in Bartleby’s life because of the way he stashes it. This detail goes against the possibility of protesting capitalism and further distinguishes Bartleby’s character from his boss.
ReplyDelete